I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

There are many, many flavours of Anglicanism. From highly liturgical High Church (the topmost layer, sometimes called Anglo-Catholic, are probably what Henry VIII wanted - Catholics outside the Pope's jurisdiction) to Latitudinarian/Broad Church (that can get so broad as to accept anyone believing in God) to heavily Calvinist-influenced Low Church. So you can find a lot of variety in views. :-) Your friend's points sound Low Church-ish enough to give Anglo-Catholics apoplexy.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

There are many, many flavours of Anglicanism. From highly liturgical High Church (the topmost layer, sometimes called Anglo-Catholic, are probably what Henry VIII wanted - Catholics outside the Pope's jurisdiction) to Latitudinarian/Broad Church (that can get so broad as to accept anyone believing in God) to heavily Calvinist-influenced Low Church. So you can find a lot of variety in views. :-) Your friend's points sound Low Church-ish enough to give Anglo-Catholics apoplexy.

I'd say his friend sounds a lot more than Low Church-ish. The points made in the OP seem particularly Low Church. I spent most of my life worshipping in the low-ish Church end of Anglicanism (somewhere between the evangelicals and middle of the road is where my Lutheran mother felt at home) and those comments would have been beyond the pale for any of those parishes.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

St. Raphael of Brooklyn expressed himself well on the subject of the Anglican Communion when he said:

Quote

...the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx

The frustration that Orthodox have in speaking with Anglicans is that it is impossible to determine exactly "what they actually believe". When one Anglican tells you "what they actually believe", most often you are just being told what this one person, as an Anglican, "actually believes". The vagueness of their teaching is largely due to the fact that Anglicanism was not founded so much on conviction but on compromise. Anglicanism was an attempt to find some kind of middle way of compromise between Roman Catholic and Protestant, and it seems that most Anglicans decide for themselves where they want to be in that spectrum.

The Episcopalian Church that I remember attending when I lived in Central Florida I think was maybe low-church. I remember that they had vestments, but they also had electric guitars and drums. That was my real first impression of the Epsicopalians and I thought that all of their churches were like that.

When I was younger I never knew that the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian Church was the same thing. Knowing now that are the same, I am still at a loss to even begin to describe what they believe, because ISTM that most of them don't know what they believe; some are for gay marriage and gay bishops, others are against both; some are for women clergy, and others are against; some seem to think that they don't need the bishops and other clergy, and others insist that they are needed.

Don't feel bad if you can't figure out what they believe, they are in the same boat*!

*I'm sure one of our Anglican/Episcopalian members will find this thread and then tell us what it is they believe. However, I'm sure another could come and give us another answer entirely. I guess we should just add everything up and take the average or the mean of what is left and then we might be able to generalize their beliefs.

St. Raphael of Brooklyn expressed himself well on the subject of the Anglican Communion when he said:

Quote

...the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx

The frustration that Orthodox have in speaking with Anglicans is that it is impossible to determine exactly "what they actually believe". When one Anglican tells you "what they actually believe", most often you are just being told what this one person, as an Anglican, "actually believes". The vagueness of their teaching is largely due to the fact that Anglicanism was not founded so much on conviction but on compromise. Anglicanism was an attempt to find some kind of middle way of compromise between Roman Catholic and Protestant, and it seems that most Anglicans decide for themselves where they want to be in that spectrum.

as someone put it, no one is safe from being Anglican. All that bridge building leads to nowhere.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

I have plenty of issues with Anglicanism but your observation is about as useful as say, this little ditty from an Evangelical site :

"Whilst we may take God-fearing and Christ-honouring Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mormons and Lutherans seriously we, as New Covenant Christians, cannot extend the same respect to their respective traditions." http://www.nccg.org/FAQ011-OrthCh.html.

or this one from a Comment board on Rotate Caeli:

"Anonymous said... Eastern "orthodoxy" is not the path to salvation no matter how beautiful the liturgy is. The denial of Peter as the head of the church as JESUS himself made him is not a little matter. Outside the Church there is NO Salvation so if i was a member of that schismatic body and was concerned for my salvation i would be searching for an Eastern Rite CATHOLIC church immediatedly!!" http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/julian-calendar-christmas-greeting.html

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters. Will you now please? Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters. Will you now please? Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*

Sure. I don't remember what you are talking about though. Feel free to ask them again.

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters. Will you now please? Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*

Sure. I don't remember what you are talking about though. Feel free to ask them again.

Thank you.

Do you recall at all a thread about Anglicans within the past few months and in which you made some erm "Broad brush" remarks about Anglicans? I shall go check for the precise one

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur. Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager. Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur. Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager. Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Annulments are granted by the RC, and probably, if the English-Spanish relations were not as prickly at the time, the issue would have been resolved. Still, after the break with Rome, the dissolution of that first marriage is considered by historians a divorce, de facto if not de jure.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur. Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager. Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

I am not quite sure as the the proper method of referencing things in threads that have been locked such as copy-and-paste, so I will just start JamesR with you used the term "Pseudo-liturgicalism" in writing about my Church in general. I asked 1) would you please explain what you meant by that phrase? and 2) What personal experience or knowledge you may have had with anything Episcopalian/Anglican that you could base this opinion upon?

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians. Could you please tell us this?

What I've read about their doctrinal statements and take on matters--such as approving of homosexuality and abortion, having atheist Bishops and allowing anyone to commune. I know that for a time, Anglicanism was respectable and actually very close to being reconciled with the Orthodox Church, but then the liberalization ruined it.

Quote

Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know? How would you know what other people believe? Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

I don't know how to answer this without disrespecting him, but JamesRottneck seems to fit my description perfectly and still adheres to the beliefs of Anglicanism even when people on this board have proved him wrong countless times.

Quote

Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

Yeah. But Anglicanism is not my Church. I don't agree with this new relativistic view in society that refuses to discern between truth and falsehood. My Church is true and theirs is false. And we can debate it logically to prove so.

Quote

But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?

Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong".

I know that, but I just think that--in my experience--Anglicans are especially like that though. I've met several Anglicans/Episcopals who--for the most part--were really just agnostic atheists wanting some sense of spirituality in their life, even if they thought the religion was bogus.

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur. Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager. Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Annulments are granted by the RC, and probably, if the English-Spanish relations were not as prickly at the time, the issue would have been resolved. Still, after the break with Rome, the dissolution of that first marriage is considered by historians a divorce, de facto if not de jure.

It is true that annulments has certainly been granted in the past and often with the lack of a male heir being part of it. That the Bishop of Rome was essentially a prisoner of the Emperor Charles V, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, influenced matters against the case.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur. Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager. Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

Henry VIII wanted a change of jurisdiction, with himself as head of the Church in England instead of the Pope. He favoured Catholic practices himself, and the Reformation didn't go far during his lifetime. More Protestant forms were adopted under Edward VI, when Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury. The definite turning point was probably the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. Mary I tried to reestablish Catholicism, so Elizabeth I swung further the other way when her turn came.

As for the CoE not allowing remarriage to divorcees... I said generally. It is left to the discretion of each vicar whether they are willing to perform the rite, and a great majority aren't. It would have made things much easier for me and my husband if they were.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

I am not quite sure as the the proper method of referencing things in threads that have been locked such as copy-and-paste

PM some of the more "active mods" and ask them. It is a good question. Sometimes locked threads get locked after they spiral out of control into very different places than where they began. You might be allowed to reference a locked thread's content, if it is for good reason and the mod hasn't said otherwise.

I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.

While the Anglican cited in the OP certainly represents the "snake-belly" low form of Anglicanism, the Episcopal Church clearly considers episcopacy to be optional, as evidenced by its full communion with Lutherans. Non-episcopally ordained Lutheran ministers can become Episcopal priests without being reordained.

I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.

You do; Anglicanism doesn't.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion. I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing. Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion. I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing. Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations

I attend the diocese of Central Florida of the Episcopal Church, FWIW. Your puzzlement is due to the fact that Anglicanism is alot less authoritarian and dogmatic in tone, however that doesn't mean that Anglicans have no belief. Anglican belief is shaped by the worship, prayer book, and creeds. There is a great deal of respect for individual opinions on non-essential matters or things indifferent: places where the Bible, Creeds, or Councils are silent.

Your friends views sound like an extreme fringe. Most Anglicans believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, albeit one that is re-presented rather than repeated. Calling the altar a "table" also doesn't much reflect on the Eucharistic theology of the congregation, either, and I don't personally have anything against calling the altar a table if it looks like one. That I'm more "Anglo-Catholic" leaning that the priest, who might have a more "Evangelical" or Lutheranesque understanding doesn't bother me. I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

Logged

"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess." - Martin Luther

I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles. That makes us Apostolic.

In the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral the Episcopate is listed as one of the essential components of Christianity.

Our Eucharistic liturgy states in no uncertain terms that we are "offering" to God a "sacrifice" of praise and thanksgiving.

In the Church consecration rite we are invited to pray for "the setting apart of the Altar." The Bishop goes on to pray,

Quote

Lord God, hear us. Sanctify this Table dedicated to you. Let it be to us a sign of the heavenly Altar where your saints and angels praise you forever.

The following rubric directs

Quote

Members of the congreation vest the Altar, place the vessels on it, and light the candles.

In the Lamplighting rite the Holy Table is used as an altar of light and incense, for the rubric directs

Quote

The candles at the Altar are now lighted, as are other candles and lamps as may be convenient.

Throughout the Book of Common Prayer "Priest" and "Presbyter" are used for the most part interchangeably.

Article XXXI states

Quote

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

This clearly refers to a specific doctrine, according to which Jesus was destroyed afresh in every Eucharist for the remission of sins that his death on Calvary had somehow failed to reach. I'm not sure that even the Latin church teaches this anymore. If your lot teach it, it's the first I've heard of it. From the reformers' standpoint, Christ died "once for all." The "sacrifices of Masses" taught that Jesus died once for some, then again for some more, then again for some more, and so on, being killed afresh in each Eucharist for sins he hadn't gotten to yet. One may regret that the reformers had a somewhat constrained theological context to work in, but within those constraints I think they made the right choice.

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion. I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing. Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054

(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054

(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize

Like what?

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 12:27:56 PM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.

That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion. I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing. Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.

how can it, if you embrace diversity as a dogma at the expense of Truth?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles. That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.

Yes, the Holy Spirit doesn't bind dead, gangerous limbs to a live Body. And the Apostles and the saints aren't dead.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize

Such as?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.

That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

I wouldn't say that we have to agree in every detail. We don't all agree on toll houses, extent of relations with other religious traditions, 6 day creationism, etc. We aren't the Borg. The Church Fathers certainly don't universally agree on everything. That is not to say that we can diverge off from what the Church teaches, but there are some grey areas that have not been dogmatized.

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion. I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing. Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion. I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing. Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054